Case 2301527/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Jamreleigh Phillips v Arden Maidstone Limited TELEPHONE CASE MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301527/2019
- Decision date
- 13 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Jamreleigh Phillips
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this telephone case management discussion on 7 January 2020, Employment Judge Britton recorded that Miss Phillips had started work for Arden Maidstone Limited on 2 January 2019 and was dismissed on 28 January 2019, with pay in lieu of notice making 4 February 2019 the effective date of termination. The tribunal noted that she alleged problems with her wrist and hands, and that the case included a disability discrimination complaint said to arise under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service needed to pursue that claim. The tribunal therefore treated the unfair dismissal issue as one it could not entertain on the facts before it, and the claimant accepted at the hearing that she could not bring that claim.
The tribunal did not determine the disability discrimination claim at this stage. It noted that disability was still in dispute, that the claimant said she had Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and that the case might involve unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. Directions were made for medical notes from 1 January 2017, an impact statement, and a schedule of loss, with a preliminary hearing listed for 11 May 2020 to decide whether the claimant was a disabled person.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant was confining any discrimination compensation to injury to feelings because she accepted she could not claim loss of earnings once ESA had been awarded, and it observed that any successful award would likely fall at the lower end of the middle Vento band. A wages issue remained to be clarified, including the discrepancy between an offer at £18,000 and a contract figure of £18,500, but no final decision was made on that point in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- two years' qualifying service
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.6 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.